braineclipse
Steve Sedgley
As we meditate on "our own" sins, as Peter Hitchens rightly calls for I think it might also help in our understanding of why our current enemies act as they do. They're humans like us, but their actions are perhaps easier to understand if compared to someone more similar to ourselves in motivations (and nationality). When I talk about "our own" here, I'm talking about a very broad "the west" perspective. As far as I've known I've not contributed personally to anyone being in Guantanamo or drone strikes over civilians.
First, those choosing to join up with ISIS and other militant groups to fight a war in a different country. This should be the easiest one to understand actually. We've seen the same in many conflicts in the past. George Orwell travelled to Spain to fight in the civil war, many Norwegians went to Finland to join in their struggle against the Soviet Unition during the winter war. Less proudly one can talk about people joining up with nazis and fascicsts from "our own countries". If people see the fight as just enough, young men will leave their comfortable homes behind and join up in the struggle. It's seen as brave when it's for a just cause. The only difference is in what one sees as a just cause.
The terror acts against civilians is harder to fathom perhaps. But again "our" slate is far from clean. In the ever escalating spiral of violence that was WW2 terror bombings of civilian targets became common on both sides. It can be defended morally perhaps when the alternative is the spread and establishment of nazism. It's easier to defend morally in hindsight after the revealation of what the nazis did to the Jews and others they saw as less than human. But again it's a question of the ends justifying the means, and attacks on civilians are far from new, we've seen it throughout history in different forms.
The suicide bombings is where it gets more difficult to understand, for me at least. Not many of those in such a direct fashion in our own history from my knowledge. Though people have certainly fought bravely on both sides of many conflict knowing that death was very likely, if not certain. Again we call it bravery. This to me is where religion really plays a different role. Not only in motivating people, but in justifying even suicide attacks by talks of an afterlife.
Looking at our history also helps put these horrible acts in some kind of a perspective. "We" were reduced to terror bombings of civilians, but it took a lot. It took a vicious, real, existential enemy. Even that enemy could, from what I've read, not degrade "us" into torture though. I think that's worth remembering, as torture has seemingly become common of a much less threathening enemy today. With justifications that probably could have been made in the past, but were not listened to. Is the enemy we face today really worth "terror bombing civilians" (if that's a harsh descriptions of drone strikes it's only so by a fairly slim margin)?
These dingdongheads are not an existential threat to us. The great wars saw losses seen from terrorist acts dwarfed on a daily basis, and brave people persevered. Let's not respond as if they're something more than they really are.
Where I think it has to be admitted that religion plays a real part is in motivating people to these actions that are more or less universally human. At least many people in all cultures would be capable of most of these actions given the right circumstances and motivation. Without religion there's at least a chance of an objective evaluation of a threat and the appropriate response. There can be rationality, though there often isn't. If the ends justify the means can be a sensible discussion based on truth, though too often it's not. To this (potential) discussion religion adds faith, belief without reason, conviction without evidence. I don't think it's helpful and it's irrationality we would be better off without.
First, those choosing to join up with ISIS and other militant groups to fight a war in a different country. This should be the easiest one to understand actually. We've seen the same in many conflicts in the past. George Orwell travelled to Spain to fight in the civil war, many Norwegians went to Finland to join in their struggle against the Soviet Unition during the winter war. Less proudly one can talk about people joining up with nazis and fascicsts from "our own countries". If people see the fight as just enough, young men will leave their comfortable homes behind and join up in the struggle. It's seen as brave when it's for a just cause. The only difference is in what one sees as a just cause.
The terror acts against civilians is harder to fathom perhaps. But again "our" slate is far from clean. In the ever escalating spiral of violence that was WW2 terror bombings of civilian targets became common on both sides. It can be defended morally perhaps when the alternative is the spread and establishment of nazism. It's easier to defend morally in hindsight after the revealation of what the nazis did to the Jews and others they saw as less than human. But again it's a question of the ends justifying the means, and attacks on civilians are far from new, we've seen it throughout history in different forms.
The suicide bombings is where it gets more difficult to understand, for me at least. Not many of those in such a direct fashion in our own history from my knowledge. Though people have certainly fought bravely on both sides of many conflict knowing that death was very likely, if not certain. Again we call it bravery. This to me is where religion really plays a different role. Not only in motivating people, but in justifying even suicide attacks by talks of an afterlife.
Looking at our history also helps put these horrible acts in some kind of a perspective. "We" were reduced to terror bombings of civilians, but it took a lot. It took a vicious, real, existential enemy. Even that enemy could, from what I've read, not degrade "us" into torture though. I think that's worth remembering, as torture has seemingly become common of a much less threathening enemy today. With justifications that probably could have been made in the past, but were not listened to. Is the enemy we face today really worth "terror bombing civilians" (if that's a harsh descriptions of drone strikes it's only so by a fairly slim margin)?
These dingdongheads are not an existential threat to us. The great wars saw losses seen from terrorist acts dwarfed on a daily basis, and brave people persevered. Let's not respond as if they're something more than they really are.
Where I think it has to be admitted that religion plays a real part is in motivating people to these actions that are more or less universally human. At least many people in all cultures would be capable of most of these actions given the right circumstances and motivation. Without religion there's at least a chance of an objective evaluation of a threat and the appropriate response. There can be rationality, though there often isn't. If the ends justify the means can be a sensible discussion based on truth, though too often it's not. To this (potential) discussion religion adds faith, belief without reason, conviction without evidence. I don't think it's helpful and it's irrationality we would be better off without.
